GCC 3.x

jsmaby at virgo.umeche.maine.edu jsmaby at virgo.umeche.maine.edu
Mon Aug 6 07:38:16 PDT 2001


I agree that we should stay with gcc-2.95.3.  I'm on an alpha
system, and ran into some other nastiness using 3.x, and had to
switch to 2.95.3.  A particularly Bad Thing that 3.x does is link
everything with libgcc_s.so.1, so if that library disappears (i.e.
you uninstalled 3.x or /usr isn't mounted), programs will not run.
If somebody wants to be on the bleeding edge, they'll compile 3.x
whether the book says to or not.  However, I think most people come
to LFS looking for stability, performance, and lack of cruft; thus
it is best to stay with what Works.

If people like to install binaries from distro's that use 3.x, it
might be a good idea to have them compile 3.x just for the library
so that said binaries can run.                                

-James Smaby
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list